Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

__________________"When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse out of the corner of my eye. I turned to look but it was gone, I cannot put my finger on it now. The child is grown, the dream is gone. I have become comfortably numb. " Pink Floyd

Was Logfoot the one where he was lying next to the log, thinking how brilliant his idea was?

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

At first glance, I thought it was most likely a quoll with some forced perspective making it appear larger. As I've studied it more, however, the legs seem too long. It doesn't appear to be a dog or dingo with a hind leg injury as close inspection reveals both hind legs to be in use. It's certainly got the bull-headed, triangular-headed shape of a dasyurid. Anyway, have at it, y'all.

__________________"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic

Here's side-by-side of Thylacine and Dingo. Given that we really just have a silhouette to work with in the new footage, I'll address what about the proportion has me interested.

1) Tail. The subject has a long tail, and long relative to its body length. Note how on a dingo the tail is rather bushy and extends down to about the ankle joint. It does not reach the ground. It is shorter than the length of the back from shoulders to hips.

In contrast, the thylacine's tail is thinner and much longer. When the animal is at rest, the tip reaches all the way to the ground. In most postures, it's also sticking out well behind the hips, rather than straight down as in dingo and most domestic dog breeds. The tail on the subject is at least as long as its back from shoulder to hips. It doesn't look as long as the tail on the Thylacine in the photo, but its longer and thinner than the dingo's tail and it's got that "thicker-at-the-base" look like a kangaroo's.

2) Hind leg morphology. Check out the right hind leg of the tylacine in the photo. It's foot is entirely flat on the ground - those suckers were quasi-plantigrade! I never noticed that, but it makes sense: Thylacines were secondarily evolved to run from ancestors that weren't really built for it. In contrast the dingo is fully digitigrade, just like the wolves/wild dogs from which it descended. It's built for running and so were its ancestors.

In terms of hindleg proportion, the heel on a dingo is higher off the ground. Thylacines, in comparison, had a shorter foot. The heel is much closer to the ground.

Unfortunately, we can't really see what's going on with the hindlegs and feet of the subject. The fact that we can't see its feet above the grass makes me wonder if they're small. Certainly the subject moves with an atypical gait for a canid, and I just can't tell if it looks more like a canid with an injury or, you know, something else . . .

It looks like a red fox. I don't see anything there that says not a fox. The gait may be a bit odd but that seems exaggerated when it's slowed way down.

Tail length proportion is good for a fox. Of course it'd be suffering some kind of fur loss from that tail to look so skinny.

Gait and leg length don't seem right to me, though. Foxes tend to move with "dainty" footsteps at a trot and to just haul-ass gallop when they need to get somewhere fast. Even with an injured hind leg the subjects legs look too short. Dunno.

You would have hoped that an half-informed "science reporter" would know the difference between the Yorke Peninsula in South Australia (where the video was shot) and the Cape York Peninsula in northern Queensland (where the article seems to imply it was shot).

Quote:

At first glance, I thought it was most likely a quoll with some forced perspective making it appear larger. As I've studied it more, however, the legs seem too long. It doesn't appear to be a dog or dingo with a hind leg injury as close inspection reveals both hind legs to be in use. It's certainly got the bull-headed, triangular-headed shape of a dasyurid. Anyway, have at it, y'all.

A Fox or Dingo with mange would explain the tail and injured back leg(s) would explain the gait.

By the way - who has determined that this gait is typical of a Thylacine?
Thylacine Awareness Group of Australia founder Neil Waters?
According to him, he can also see on this washed out silhouette, "some discolouration on its back".
Seems like wishful thinking combined with vested interest to me.

If you Google for modern living thylacine videos you will get maybe a dozen. IMO, all of these show foxes with mange.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

They all basically look the same

Agreed.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

and this newest one is just more of the same.

Disagreed. Hence my interest.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

Here is a graphic of the thylacine gait.

That actually looks to be a pretty good match to the subject's gait and a poor match to fox gaits.

It might be a canid - with or without mange and/or hind-end compromise. Parsimony would almost demand so and there is the cardinal rule of the JREF/ISF: "Parcher is always spot-on with these things." But I still find it interesting. I'd rather be convinced that it's a fox rather than merely capitulate that it's probably a fox.

Here is a graphic of the thylacine gait. There are some old films of them in zoos.

I searched for gait and I believe I found the same as you, William.
I believe though, that this is a walking gait, not a running gait.
I maintain that film of a running gait doesn't exist, so declaring that the video evidence shows "typical" Thylacine gait is unjustified.

There was a similar problem with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker audio "evidence".
Since they had none to compare current recordings too the "knock" recordings identified as "genuine" had no basis in scientific fact.

Quote:

If you Google for modern living thylacine videos you will get maybe a dozen. IMO, all of these show foxes with mange. They all basically look the same and this newest one is just more of the same.

I think I mentioned in passing on another thread that I was half thinking of taking up pursuit of Thylacine as I near my retirement - but even the briefest of research on the current evidence was enough to persuade me that it would be a futile endeavour.

I would have been better off returning to England to look for big cats in the countryside. At least there all I had to do was wait for a zoo/circus/menagerie escape and grab my camera.

I believe though, that this is a walking gait, not a running gait.
I maintain that film of a running gait doesn't exist, so declaring that the video evidence shows "typical" Thylacine gait is unjustified.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by EHocking

There was a similar problem with the Ivory-billed Woodpecker audio "evidence". Since they had none to compare current recordings too the "knock" recordings identified as "genuine" had no basis in scientific fact.

Quibble - we actually have recordings of the double-knock from extant members of the genus Campephilus. They all do it.

Quibble - we actually have recordings of the double-knock from extant members of the genus Campephilus. They all do it.

This is exactly my point.

They had recordings of extant woodpeckers that were not IBWP, which they used to declare the existence of IBWP, because its knocking was similar.
But they had no recording of an IBWP knock and then carried on analysing their current recordings with the verve, vigour and inventiveness of the best Bigfoot "Researcher".

It was so much wishful thinking, and as with Thylacine hunters, the more the look the worse the "evidence" became.

And I do understand ID by exclusion.
I identified a Black Woodpecker in Germany for the first time from its call and knocking - based on the fact that I had never heard one before.
I knew what it wasn't - and that was all the other European WPs that I had heard. I later ID'd it by spotting and photographing.
But before then I was very confident what I was tracking down - even though I'd never seen/heard one before.

In my opinion the footage is likely to be genuine based on the credibility of the videographer, the animal carries a leg injury which is contributing to its seemingly unusual gait and the fox silhouette provides a better match than the thylacine silhouette. I concur with Kays' conclusion that the animal is probably a canid with hip dysplasia.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

They had recordings of extant woodpeckers that were not IBWP, which they used to declare the existence of IBWP, because its knocking was similar.
But they had no recording of an IBWP knock and then carried on analysing their current recordings with the verve, vigour and inventiveness of the best Bigfoot "Researcher".

I'm sorry but I'm missing your point. If I'm looking for sounds of Campephilus A but I only have recordings of the similar Campephilus B, it makes fine sense to me to search recordings for signatures of Campephilus B sounds as plausible evidence for Campephilus A in an area outside the distribution of Campephilus B but within the historical distribution of Campephilus A.

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the Lab's conclusion that there was at least one extant Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas in 2004 and 2005. I don't have a problem with the double-knock analysis from automated recording units. They deployed these things all over the Southeastern US and the only place they obtained recordings that met their stringent criteria was in the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas.

Foxes are susceptible to the same diseases as dogs which are transmissible between these animals. Mange and distemper are thought to be important causes of mortality in wild fox populations, however little is known about their role in regulating Australian fox populations.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

I'm really amazed that the author and the other guy "Kay" he quoted both use mange fox outlines without any mention of them being that.

It's majorly significant that the animal must be afflicted with mange before its outline begins to resemble a thylacine. This is important for the analysis of this video but it's also important for the analysis of other purported thylacine videos. It also matters a lot for people who might see one of these and think they are seeing a thylacine. Yet there is no mention at all in the articles. It's so weird.

I'm really amazed that the author and the other guy "Kay" he quoted both use mange fox outlines without any mention of them being that.

It's majorly significant that the animal must be afflicted with mange before its outline begins to resemble a thylacine. This is important for the analysis of this video but it's also important for the analysis of other purported thylacine videos. It also matters a lot for people who might see one of these and think they are seeing a thylacine. Yet there is no mention at all in the articles. It's so weird.

Here's a normal red fox outline.

Perhaps the mange in OZ is too mundane to mention.

__________________A sentimental materialization of the kind of quasi‐rural bonhomie that seemed a millimeter from actual goose‐stepping and brown‐shirt uproars of bumpkin fascism.

What's the reason for all the Thylacine ambiguity if they haven't been seen in over 80 years? All of a sudden one's gonna show up? Even supposing there's just a single breeding pair that only replicates itself incestuously every 10 years long generation, how could they have not been found by now? So many previous specimens were easily found, hunted and killed, yet now they're sleek and stealth ninjas never to be "officially" seen again, but they're out there? To paraphrase The Shrike, Bigfoot anyone?

I'm sorry but I'm missing your point. If I'm looking for sounds of Campephilus A but I only have recordings of the similar Campephilus B, it makes fine sense to me to search recordings for signatures of Campephilus B sounds as plausible evidence for Campephilus A in an area outside the distribution of Campephilus B but within the historical distribution of Campephilus A.

There are plenty of reasons to be critical of the Lab's conclusion that there was at least one extant Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas in 2004 and 2005. I don't have a problem with the double-knock analysis from automated recording units. They deployed these things all over the Southeastern US and the only place they obtained recordings that met their stringent criteria was in the Big Woods of eastern Arkansas.

Well, I have to argue that applying their "stringent criteria" is all well and good, but when one of the critical double-knock criteria, the inter-strike interval, appears to be largely arbitrary. Unfortunately the only document that seems to be missing from their site, is the one that explains how they determined a range of 60-120ms.

They argue that their conclusions that the double-knocks are plausible evidence because it is "quantitative" - but it is quantified against a seemingly arbitrary benchmark whose documentary evidence is currently missing - since 2007 or so according to the Wayback Machine (your GoogleFu may be better than mine).

As I said, I felt they acted just a little like wide-eyed, wishful-thinking "cryptozoologists" of a lesser scientific background. As such, Cornell's endless analyses and discussions need to be taken with just as much salt, IMO.

So what you're saying is you can start a fire with your thoughts the Thylacineus transformed into a species of Woodpeckerus in Arkansasus and nobody noticed except a famous cryptozoologistus in a campus bus? Great, just great!

The funny thing is, in this very thread a while back I'd already spoken about the werewolf thing, and how popular it was (and still is in parts of Europe) and how since the advent of the Bigfoot Boom it had died down, and been replaced.